I wish evolution was true ... because I would have Wings

UppsalaDragby · Feb 26, 2014

River Jordan said:
You certainly are adept at dodging questions. IMO, that you do this so often tells me a lot about you.

No I am not. I just don't want to get sent down a pointless, time-wasting rabbit trail built on a false assumption. I consider the world to be round for the same reasons that you do, and all you are doing here is trying to find a smart way to make it appear that I have different methods to evaluate truth. Which I don't. If I actually felt that the Bible was saying that the earth was not round but flat then I would do EXACTLY what I do with the issue at hand.

Firstly, when something in the Bible seems to contradict the scientific concensus I check to see whether or not there might be an alternative interpretation of the verses in question. Are they poetic verses? Are they simply parables? Are they idioms? And so on.

Having done that and I don't see any alternative interpretation, I check out what arguments are being used by both sides, EXACTLY as I have done in the creation/evolution debate. I might not be a scientist but I STILL have a capacity to evaluate arguments and make judgements about how reasonable they sound.

Please pay attention. I specifically said "a group of people" and that was in response to your statement about "creationists" in a general sense.

Pay attention to what??? What exactly are you talking about, and where did you specifically say "a group of people"?

I asked YOU where I decried atheists?

And you claim that I am adept at dodging questions!

Do you think all non young-earth creationists are "wolves in sheep's clothing"? For example, is Francis Collins (who's been very outspoken about how he sees no conflict with Christianity and evolution) one? Ken Miller? I mean, I mostly just talk to kids at my church and post on internet forums. Those guys write very high-profile books

Here goes this dishonest twisting of words again. Firstly I didn't say that YEC's were "wolves in sheep's clothings", and neither did I say that about evolutionists!

What I ACTUALLY said was "the Bible warns us to be wary of sheep in wolves clothing", as well as giving us many other such warnings not to be led astray by the doctrines of men. I am doing my duty as a Christian, that's all.

The way you constantly twist and distort what I say shows exactly what the quality of your arguments are.

I wish you were open and honest like this more often.

Oh, so someone like you thinks you have the right to call ME dishonest. Now that's a joke! I pointed out how you falsely claimed to quote me word for word, and when I did so did you have the honest decency to own up and admit it? No, you just continue on and pretend as though it didn't happen and now accuse me of being dishonest...

Where exactly have I ever been dishonest in my discussions with you?

Statements like that make it extremely clear, and leave absolutely no doubt, what the real issue is for you.

And?

Nope, not at all. I've never once proposed anyone reject the Genesis account. But every time I've tried to discuss its interpretation, you clam up and go all evasive. That says to me that your position is pretty set in stone and as soon as it's even the slightest bit questioned or threatened, you do everything you can to not talk about it.

Again you expose your own dishonesty. This is the second time you falsely accuse me of being evasive about the Genesis account. The first time you did I pointed out exactly how that wasn't true, saying:

"Don't make things up! I most definitely engaged in the issue of day, morning and evening in post #134."

Now you come back at me ONCE MORE with the same empty accusation.

Furthermore, my position is NOT set in stone, which is something I pointed out for you earlier on when I told you that NO theistic evolutionist that I have come across has EVER given me an alternative interpretation of the Genesis account.

So here is your big chance. Tell me how Genesis should be interpreted. I'm all ears.

Can you give an example of my making such statements?

Well I am glad you asked. First you say:

"The fact that creationists have to resort to obviously (and easily documented) dishonest tactics like quote mining should tell you something!"

Note that it is not "some creationists", but "creationists", implying that all creationists use dishonest tactics. You then go on to say the following:

"That's what sealed it for me on this issue. One side fully embraced all the data, all the evidence, and all the scripture, and made reasonable, logical arguments. The other side denied most of the data, most of the evidence, insisted on only one narrow reading of scripture, and engaged in absurd and dishonest tactics along the way."

You remember that? You know, when you tried to claim that creationists denied data, and to prove it you quote-mined the ICR's statement of faith.

First of all, if there's a lack of expertise in evolutionary biology, or the sciences in general, at that forum, why is it so terrible to point that out (especially given that that's the context in which you referred me there)? Am I just supposed to say something like, "Wow, sure is a high level of expertise at that place", even if it's not true?

Firstly, it is quite obvious and predicable, that you would simply came back to me claiming that you weren't impressed by their level of expertise. To you, I expect anyone who disagrees with what evolutionary biologists claim is displaying a lack of expertise. Secondly, you made that claim very early on after one or two discussions, so obviously YOU had already made up your mind that everyone there lacked expertise! Thirdly, as far as I can tell, you have only been discussing biology. What about physics and geology and the other things you claim provide so much evidence of evolution?

And I though you didn't want to discuss the goings-on there in this forum? Which is it?

YOU are the one started discussing the "goings-on" there, not me! The fact that you claimed that they were using "variations on the 'were you there' theme, and personal insults" caused me to ask you what you meant by that. You STILL haven't answered.

Where was the "were you there" argument being used?

What were the "personal insults" they were using?

River Jordan · Feb 26, 2014

Mr.Bride said:
Oh Snr, she has physically seen evolution huh.

Yes, I have observed evolution of a new trait in lab settings. I've described the process here several times.

UppsalaDragby said:
No I am not. I just don't want to get sent down a pointless, time-wasting rabbit trail built on a false assumption.

Yes you are. You are refusing to answer the question. That is a fact.

Having done that and I don't see any alternative interpretation, I check out what arguments are being used by both sides, EXACTLY as I have done in the creation/evolution debate. I might not be a scientist but I STILL have a capacity to evaluate arguments and make judgements about how reasonable they sound.

I'd ask you what from "both sides" you "checked out", but you've already shown that's a waste of time.

Here goes this dishonest twisting of words again. Firstly I didn't say that YEC's were "wolves in sheep's clothings", and neither did I say that about evolutionists!

For the love of.....

Would you PLEASE read what I post? I said "Do you think all non young-earth creationists are "wolves in sheep's clothing"?" See the word "non" in front of "young earth creationists"?

The way you constantly twist and distort what I say shows exactly what the quality of your arguments are.

Oh the irony.....

"Don't make things up! I most definitely engaged in the issue of day, morning and evening in post #134."

Let's see....I posted: "A "morning and evening" where? Mornings, evenings, and days are different in different places. A "day" on Jupiter is only 9 earth hours, whereas a "day" on Venus is 116 earth days. Since the earth and sun hadn't been created yet, the days, evenings, and mornings can't have been from an earth perspective. So what did they refer to, and how do you know?"

You responded: "Why are you being so evasive? What are you going to do next... poke out your tongue? If you are going to be silly about this then don't pretend to be anything other than a defiant little infant. You want to play games, go find a sandpit somewhere down the street. If you want a serious discussion then let me know."

If that's your idea of "engagement", then I guess we have different ideas about what that means.

However, if you're now willing to discuss this, then let's do so. You can start by actually addressing the questions I asked.

So here is your big chance. Tell me how Genesis should be interpreted. I'm all ears.

As I've pointed out before, I interpret it as showing a clear, consistent theme of God letting things happen on their own. God lets light be, the waters separate, the waters gather, the ground appear, the land produce vegetation, the seas teem with life, and the land produce living creatures. The Hebrew supports this as "God let" is a jussive, which indicates a passive act.

The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to be more a literary means to distinguish creative categories (and set the table for the 7 day week). Otherwise, in any sort of literal way they make no sense. As I pointed out earlier, days mornings, and evenings are very different depending on where you are, and given that the very structures that make a day, morning, and evening on earth weren't created until the fourth "day", IMO that's all a very clear indication that they couldn't have been literal 24-hour earth days.

Further, if we look at Genesis 2 and try and read that with Chapter 1 in a strictly literal sense, we are stuck with a number of problems.

To me, all that together tells me that trying to read the Genesis creation accounts like they are detached, objective newspaper articles just doesn't fit the text. Then we throw in how careful and thorough study of God's actual creation just flat out doesn't line up with this YEC literal reading, and that just seals the deal.

Now if you want to talk more about this, I'm game. But I'm really really tired of every conversation with you turning into an endless back and forth over what exact word you or I used and whether it's synonymous with another word. That's not why I'm here.

Mr.Bride · Feb 26, 2014

River,

Jesus Himself told me that all scripture is God-breathed. That the creation account is correct as stands. Now who's lying? The Lord, me, scientists, or you? Simple question. Think before you dive. God bless you.

KingJ · Feb 27, 2014

River Jordan said:
As I've pointed out before, I interpret it as showing a clear, consistent theme of God letting things happen on their own. God lets light be, the waters separate, the waters gather, the ground appear, the land produce vegetation, the seas teem with life, and the land produce living creatures. The Hebrew supports this as "God let" is a jussive, which indicates a passive act.

Yes God does leave many things to happen....motion comes from Him and our sin. Our sin caused woman to have pain in childbirth and need to work the land. Our sin caused lions to eat lambs.

God certainly catered for that by giving lions big teeth. Yet before sin...God NEVER '''let'''' lions eat lambs or any form of natural selection take place.

You are swallowing a camel and thinking its candy bar. Really still not sure if you are intently doing so or just naive.

UppsalaDragby · Feb 27, 2014

River Jordan said:
Yes you are. You are refusing to answer the question. That is a fact.

No, that is not a fact. Dispite your failure to clarify what you meant, I answered the question in the previous post. That is a fact.

I'd ask you what from "both sides" you "checked out", but you've already shown that's a waste of time.

As far as I am aware there are one two sides in this particular debate, and I haven't show that it's a waste of time anymore than YOU have. If you disagree then please explain why.

For the love of.....

What? Evolution?

Would you PLEASE read what I post? I said "Do you think all non young-earth creationists are "wolves in sheep's clothing"?" See the word "non" in front of "young earth creationists"?

Well gee you are a touchy individual aren't you. I missed that word sorry about that, but PLEASE ADDRESS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MY COMMENT, instead of BLOWING UP THE FONT SIZE OF SOMETHING THAT IS NOT EQUALLY IMPORTANT, which was that:

"the Bible warns us to be wary of sheep in wolves clothing".

Oh the irony.....

Any further comment about that than a sarcastic one-liner?

If that's your idea of "engagement", then I guess we have different ideas about what that means.

However, if you're now willing to discuss this, then let's do so. You can start by actually addressing the questions I asked.

My response wasn't evasive but adequately illustrated how compltely ridiculous your question was, which ANYONE following this discussion can see. Why not suggest that a "day" is the time it takes for a planet somewhere in the most distant galexy to revolve around a star? Is that the level you want to reduce this discussion to in order to avoid admitting to your OBVIOUSLY flawed arguments then continue to do so, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

As I've pointed out before, I interpret it as showing a clear, consistent theme of God letting things happen on their own. God lets light be, the waters separate, the waters gather, the ground appear, the land produce vegetation, the seas teem with life, and the land produce living creatures. The Hebrew supports this as "God let" is a jussive, which indicates a passive act. .

Sure, but if I create both a door and a dog then "letting the dog out" doesn't mean that either the door of the dog was created, passively, all on its own. What the Genesis account teaches us is that God created environments for each living creature and let them propagate within those environments. You are deceptively twisting the word "let" to go beyond the context within which it is being used.

The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to be more a literary means to distinguish creative categories (and set the table for the 7 day week). Otherwise, in any sort of literal way they make no sense. As I pointed out earlier, days mornings, and evenings are very different depending on where you are, and given that the very structures that make a day, morning, and evening on earth weren't created until the fourth "day", IMO that's all a very clear indication that they couldn't have been literal 24-hour earth days.

Well, as I pointed out, and which you conveniently ignored, a day is a measurement of time, just as an inch is a measurement of length irrespective of whether or not a ruler exists. You also conveniently didn't explain what the days were! All you do is use an "IMO" comment about what you don't think they are. What were the days? Were they millions or billions of years? How is that "IYO" a reasonable interpretation when we know that there are dependencies between forms of life created on one day with other forms of life created on another day? You want me to abandon MY interpretation? Good! Give me a better one!

What were the evenings? What what were the mornings? Why where they mentioned? Surely you've got it all figured out!

Further, if we look at Genesis 2 and try and read that with Chapter 1 in a strictly literal sense, we are stuck with a number of problems.

Oh, really??? Please explain what problems you are referring to.

To me, all that together tells me that trying to read the Genesis creation accounts like they are detached, objective newspaper articles just doesn't fit the text. Then we throw in how careful and thorough study of God's actual creation just flat out doesn't line up with this YEC literal reading, and that just seals the deal.

Well, you seem to let things "seal the deal", that I absolutely don't, so just let me know what you mean and perhaps we can see that the "deal" isn't "sealed" as tightly as you suggest.

But I'm really really tired of every conversation with you turning into an endless back and forth over what exact word you or I used and whether it's synonymous with another word. That's not why I'm here.

Well I'm sure it's not. The "reason you are here" is probably because you naively hoped that your understanding of evolution would just bowl everyone over and that we would all be so impressed with your arguments that we would unsuspectingly just waltz after the same tune. Sure, you are an intelligent and knowledgable girl, but you need to be very careful with it. Just as KingJ pointed out in another thread, you REALLY need to take careful heed the strong warnings that scripture gives to people like you and not just write them off as something that "fundies" make up. You have chosen a path. A path that will probably give you acclaim and praise in this world, but you have definietly been duped, and you will have to give an account for what you have taught to others who are as gullible as you. You can join the huge troop of atheists that mock creationist, but bear in mind that most people believe ANYTHING that comes from the "scientific" community. A global flood is ridiculous, but if a scientist claims that something can come from nothing, which in ANYONE'S books is completely absurd, that life, which is not only incredibly complex but requires an information system to be in place in order to survive can be generated in a pond, that some forms of life are practically unchanged for millions and millions of years whereas other forms just haven't stopped changing, that "simple" organisms such as plankton can develop the ability to manipulate the weather, and so on and so on... this is all suddenly COMPLETELY BELIEVABLE, simply because the scientific community decides that it is!

It is almost amusing the degree of trust that people place in what scientists say. If a scientist has an appropriate theory for something then it exists, otherwise it doesn't. When I was just a teenager I took a trip from Sydney over to New Zealand and on the way there I saw something that, according to the scientific community, didn't exist because they thought it was impossible - a rougue wave. It was a myth, because a wave doesn't have the power to lift itself up over the surface of the sea like that. However, as soon as someone came up with a theory that explained how they could be generated then suddenly they existed. To you, this of course is just another example of how science is "self-correcting", and sure, to a certain degree it is, but what is deceptive in all this is the impression it gives everyone that science always advances and that if anyone knows anything then scientists do.

That is crap! And why do I, as a non-scientist say that? Because we ONLY KNOW what we KNOW, not what we DON'T KNOW. Despite that people seem to be totally convinced that scientists have got it all figured out... just a few more details left and we are there... It's just like the stock market crash in 1929. Before that, all the "experts" told everyone to buy, whereas the few people who tried to warn the people what was around the corner were all shouted down. No one suspected anything then just as no one suspects anything now. But there is a crash coming. It might not be today, maybe not tomorrow, but it will come.

Oh, and by the way, for the THIRD time, where are you responses to these questions concerning the other forum (particularly the second question):

Where was the "were you there" argument being used?

What were the "personal insults" they were using?

River Jordan · Feb 27, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
"the Bible warns us to be wary of sheep in wolves clothing".

And.....? What's your point?

Why not suggest that a "day" is the time it takes for a planet somewhere in the most distant galexy to revolve around a star?

Why not (except for the fact that a day is how long it takes a planet to rotate one time, and one orbital circuit around a star is a year)? If you were there, that's what a "day" would mean to you. A "day" is a measurement of time, but its metric is the amount of time it takes for a planet to rotate, which makes it relative.

So how do you know what period of time a "day" meant in Genesis before the earth was formed?

Sure, but if I create both a door and a dog then "letting the dog out" doesn't mean that either the door of the dog was created, passively, all on its own.

????? Genesis doesn't say God "let things out". It specifically says He "let the earth bring forth".

What the Genesis account teaches us is that God created environments for each living creature and let them propagate within those environments. You are deceptively twisting the word "let" to go beyond the context within which it is being used.

I don't recall the words "environment" or "propagate" in scripture. It specifically says God "let the land produce living creatures".

I mean, if we're going to stick to your interpretative framework where we have to read this in a "plain" manner (in English apparently) and as some sort of police report written by an eye witness, then you need to be consistent in that regard. Under that framework, if it says God let the land produce living creatures, then that's what happened, right?

Well, as I pointed out, and which you conveniently ignored, a day is a measurement of time, just as an inch is a measurement of length irrespective of whether or not a ruler exists.

Come on dude....

An inch doesn't change from one place to the next. A day does. Surely you know that.

You also conveniently didn't explain what the days were!

Yes I did. To repeat: The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to be more a literary means to distinguish creative categories (and set the table for the 7 day week).

You want me to abandon MY interpretation? Good! Give me a better one!

No, I don't actually. I've explained this several times.

What were the evenings? What what were the mornings? Why where they mentioned? Surely you've got it all figured out!

See above. And no, I don't have it all figured out....and neither do you. That's the point here. The Genesis creation accounts require interpretation. They are not written in a scientific format with a "methods" section containing detailed descriptions of exactly how everything was done. I mean, look at the first two verses...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Do you have any idea how many different interpretations of that there are? And if you get into the original ancient Hebrew, there's all sorts of debate over the basic question of how that translates into English! What in the world is "the deep", and what "waters" was God hovering over?

Whatever your reading of that is, my point remains the same....there is no "plain reading" of that, and it most certainly was not written as any sort of scientific statement about physics, cosmology, or anything else. My interpretation of Genesis is definitely different than yours, and I'm fine with that. But you and the other fundies here are ready to cast out people like me as heretics.

Oh, really??? Please explain what problems you are referring to.

Sure. Now remember, we're sticking to your "plain reading" framework where we take Genesis 1 & 2 for what they plainly say, with no assumptions or anything else added or taken away. We'll start with one obvious problem with this approach...

In Genesis 1 we're told that on the third day God creates vegetation...

"Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day."

This is 2 days before animals are created and 3 days before man is created.

In Genesis 2 however, we're told something different. The very first thing it says about actual creation is...

"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

There's a very clear sequence...no plants on earth, then God makes a man.

So where Genesis 1 says plants on earth first, then man 3 days later, Genesis 2 says man is created before plants on earth.

Now, I am familiar with some of the apologetics around this, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with some of them (although some are really out there, I've seen some suggest Eden wasn't on earth), but the point here is to demonstrate the sort of box strict literalism and throwing these scriptures into a scientific context puts people in.

And actually, a "plain reading" of the original Hebrew indicates that these are two accounts, written by two different people. But that's a whole nuther debate.

Well, you seem to let things "seal the deal", that I absolutely don't, so just let me know what you mean and perhaps we can see that the "deal" isn't "sealed" as tightly as you suggest.

The fundamental questions of the age of the universe and earth, the evolution of life, a non-scientific reading of Genesis....for me are done deals. To be clear, by "done deal" that just means I've reached conclusions on those things. Of course if something new came along I'd be open to see what it says.

The "reason you are here" is probably because you naively hoped that your understanding of evolution would just bowl everyone over and that we would all be so impressed with your arguments that we would unsuspectingly just waltz after the same tune.

No, I've been explaining my overall point for a while now. Obviously you haven't been paying attention.

Sure, you are an intelligent and knowledgable girl, but you need to be very careful with it. Just as KingJ pointed out in another thread, you REALLY need to take careful heed the strong warnings that scripture gives to people like you and not just write them off as something that "fundies" make up. You have chosen a path. A path that will probably give you acclaim and praise in this world, but you have definietly been duped, and you will have to give an account for what you have taught to others who are as gullible as you.

Perhaps it is you who scripture warns of and will have to explain to God why you tied Christianity to so much foolishness.

You can join the huge troop of atheists that mock creationist, but bear in mind that most people believe ANYTHING that comes from the "scientific" community. A global flood is ridiculous, but if a scientist claims that something can come from nothing, which in ANYONE'S books is completely absurd, that life, which is not only incredibly complex but requires an information system to be in place in order to survive can be generated in a pond, that some forms of life are practically unchanged for millions and millions of years whereas other forms just haven't stopped changing, that "simple" organisms such as plankton can develop the ability to manipulate the weather, and so on and so on... this is all suddenly COMPLETELY BELIEVABLE, simply because the scientific community decides that it is!

And that's a very interesting issue that gets back to my overall point here. Why do fundamentalist Christians feel so compelled to try to justify their beliefs via science? Look at AiG, ICR, creation.com, etc....they all have devoted significant resources to making scientific-looking arguments to support their beliefs. They spend a lot of resources trying to argue against science and change science curricula. They hold annual conferences where they talk about science and strategize about their next moves.

To me, there's an underlying message to all that. They wouldn't do any of it if they truly believed "scripture is all you need" and "science is just the product of fallible men". Do you see how hypocritical it is to on one hand proclaim that science is untrustworthy and chastise those who accept it as "believing in the words of men"....while at the same time trying to argue that science supports your beliefs?

I think the whole "creation science" phenomenon is an implicit admission that in our society, science, not religious authority, is the dominant and most reliable means of establishing "truth". So the creationists are trying to garner some of that credibility for themselves....while at the same time yelling that science isn't trustworthy.

It's bizarre from my perspective.

As far as the other forum, as I said before I've completely lost interest in these "who said what" exchanges with you, so I'm certainly not going to bring discussions from other forums into here. What I described are my impressions of that place. If you want to declare victory on this, that's fine with me.

But let's keep this in perspective. Both that forum and this one are.....internet forums. In the grand scheme of things, nothing that goes on in either place is of real consequence. You guys can make all the grand declarations about science and evolution you want....meanwhile in the real world where science is actually done, no one hears you at all and things go on as before.

KingJ · Feb 28, 2014

River Jordan said:
But let's keep this in perspective. Both that forum and this one are.....internet forums. In the grand scheme of things, nothing that goes on in either place is of real consequence. You guys can make all the grand declarations about science and evolution you want....meanwhile in the real world where science is actually done, no one hears you at all and things go on as before.

And in church / Christian forums where scripture is taught, God constantly reminds us of His truth despite what goes on in the world. Being corrupted by the world is a well known fact of the last days. That the devil use false science to push evil agendas should be a no brainer among us.

You have / should have the added advantage of Christian / scriptural insight into worldly wisdom whatever it may be. But you don't. You come across so biased to creationist science / are super glued in your heterodoxy. It is like you are looking at the earth and calling it flat when we know it is round. One-day when you will be honest with yourself and stop allowing outside / self induced brainwashing that evolution is fact...you will kick yourself and hopefully repent for harrassing so many who hold fast to scripture / the truth.

I look forward to seeing the anti christ come and in an instant curing atheism / debunking evolution. It will be an embarassing / humiliating time for Christians who believed as they do.

UppsalaDragby · Feb 28, 2014

River Jordan said:
And.....? What's your point?

My point, which should have been obvious from the context, was that what I was saying was a LONG cry from what YOU were insinuating - that my assertion was that all non-YEC's are wolves in sheep's clothing. I never said that, and if you had your wits about you you wouldn't have made such a blatent logical blunder. Someone telling their children to be wary of strangers does NOT mean that they are asserting that ALL strangers are evil. So get a grip on yourself and keep things in perspective.

Why not (except for the fact that a day is how long it takes a planet to rotate one time, and one orbital circuit around a star is a year)? If you were there, that's what a "day" would mean to you. A "day" is a measurement of time, but its metric is the amount of time it takes for a planet to rotate, which makes it relative.

Because, again, it is obvious. The Bible was obviously written so that it would be understood by mankind by all generations throughout timek, otherwise it would fail to be a source of correction, which the apostle Paul claimed it was. You seem to be utterly desparate. Are you trying to assert that the use of the word "day" in Genesis is referring to the rotation of a planet somewhere in the universe other than the earth? Or could it possible be that you are so determined to be contentious that you clutch at every straw you can find?

So how do you know what period of time a "day" meant in Genesis before the earth was formed?

I don't and neither did I make that claim, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, I need a GOOD argument to convince me that it wasn't a 24 hour day having both evenings and mornings. You got one???

????? Genesis doesn't say God "let things out".

For someone who criticizes literal interpretations you certainly seem to have a hard time understand analogies.

It specifically says He "let the earth bring forth".

So? You are totally ignoring everyting I have said in response to this. You are also ignoring the point that there are two separate environments (BOTH earth and water) that "bring forth" separate life forms on separate days. You ignore this because all you are interested in doing is promoting evolution.

I don't recall the words "environment" or "propagate" in scripture.

I don't recall saying those words were used in scripture. If you consider the earth, the skies and the water to be the same environment then please... be my guest and explain what you mean. And if you think that different kinds of animals and plants producing after their kind is not indicative of propagation then, again, present your case. Perhaps I used the wrong word... according to you?

I mean, if we're going to stick to your interpretative framework where we have to read this in a "plain" manner (in English apparently) and as some sort of police report written by an eye witness, then you need to be consistent in that regard. Under that framework, if it says God let the land produce living creatures, then that's what happened, right?

Well, sure, if you can give me an alternative interptetation of what scripture says, the understanding of which transcends all generations, then please just lay it out on the table. The only interpretation that I can see that does so is that each environment supported the life forms that were assigned to it. Pretty simple isn't it?

Come on dude....
An inch doesn't change from one place to the next. A day does. Surely you know that.

LOL! Well come on little chickedee, a day doesn't change from 24-hours to millions and millions of years from one place to the next. Surely you know that.

No, I don't actually. I've explained this several times.

Don't what? And what have you "explained"? All you have done is suggest a spin on one word, if you have done more than that then please remind me.

See above.

Where in the "above" did you present any explanation of how we should interpret evenings and mornings?

And no, I don't have it all figured out....and neither do you. That's the point here. The Genesis creation accounts require interpretation.

Well here is the big flaw in your reasoning River Jordan. Even though interpretation is necessary to some extent in any form of litterature, someone you consider to be a "literalist" doesn't have to work very hard to "figure out" one. If I write a letter to you to say that I will be away on the weekend then you hardly have to figure out an "interpretation" for that UNLESS I give some kind of indication that what I was writing was NOT to be taken literally. Get it?

Now the reason I said that surely you had it figured out is that YOU seem to be claiming that a literal interpretation is wrong and label anyone who adheres to such a belief to be "fundies" and so on WITHOUT producing a reasonable alternative.

They are not written in a scientific format with a "methods" section containing detailed descriptions of exactly how everything was done. I mean, look at the first two verses...

Who said they were written in a scientific format?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Do you have any idea how many different interpretations of that there are? And if you get into the original ancient Hebrew, there's all sorts of debate over the basic question of how that translates into English! What in the world is "the deep", and what "waters" was God hovering over?

So there are debates! There are debates about scripture just as there are debates about matters concerning evolution. THAT certainly didn't stop you! If there are different intepretations then we need to decide which interpretation seems the most reasonable, not just sweep the matter aside as an excuse to adopt the theory that tickles us the most. Our MAJOR priority should be to determine what GOD wants us to understand from the Genesis account, not what we want it to say. I would MUCH PREFER to believe in evolution if I thought that it was true. It would be the easier path for me to follow than one that constantly ruffles the feathers of people who have swallowed its teachings hook, line and sinker. But I don't believe that Genesis supports evolution and neither do I find it particularly believable even without the Genesis account.

.... This is 2 days before animals are created and 3 days before man is created.
In Genesis 2 however, we're told something different. The very first thing it says about actual creation is...
"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

I doubt strongly that this is an argument you invented yourself. Probably something you copied from somewhere else, and I say that as a compliment. To start with, the original greek (as well as most translations) render these verses as saying "no plant of the field" and "no shrub of the field" and all it says is that they had not yet APPEARED, not that they were not CREATED. If you plant seeds in the ground then you probably will notice that they do not appear until you water them.

And actually, a "plain reading" of the original Hebrew indicates that these are two accounts, written by two different people. But that's a whole nuther debate.

The "original Hebrew" does nothing of the sort. One account is strictly chronological, whereas the other simply expands on the events that occured starting off from the 6th day.

"The fundamental questions of the age of the universe and earth, the evolution of life, a non-scientific reading of Genesis....for me are done deals. To be clear, by "done deal" that just means I've reached conclusions on those things. Of course if something new came along I'd be open to see what it says."

Again, what you consider to be "done deals" is totally unimportant in this debate. You have chosen who you want to follow, and there doesn't need to be anything "new", just as Jesus pointed out when he spoke of what Abraham said to the rich man who realize way too late that he had made a terrible, terrible mistake - " 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

"Perhaps it is you who scripture warns of and will have to explain to God why you tied Christianity to so much foolishness."

Yeah, perhaps, but scripture testifies ITSELF about how we are to listen to and who we are to be wary of:
"To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn."
You are totally free to point out where what I have said in these discussions departs from what scripture says. Saying "perhaps" is hardly enough!

"Why do fundamentalist Christians feel so compelled to try to justify their beliefs via science? Look at AiG, ICR, creation.com, etc....they all have devoted significant resources to making scientific-looking arguments to support their beliefs. They spend a lot of resources trying to argue against science and change science curricula. They hold annual conferences where they talk about science and strategize about their next moves."

We don't try to justify our beliefs through science. An argument such as that is simply a strawman. Creationists beliefs don't need to be justified by science, but our CONCERNS for people being led astray about this teaching compel us to take a stand. We are CALLED to contend for the gospel, and the Genesis account is fundamental to the gospel in that it explains who we are and why we are in the situation we are.

"To me, there's an underlying message to all that. They wouldn't do any of it if they truly believed "scripture is all you need" and "science is just the product of fallible men". Do you see how hypocritical it is to on one hand proclaim that science is untrustworthy and chastise those who accept it as "believing in the words of men"....while at the same time trying to argue that science supports your beliefs?
I think the whole "creation science" phenomenon is an implicit admission that in our society, science, not religious authority, is the dominant and most reliable means of establishing "truth". So the creationists are trying to garner some of that credibility for themselves....while at the same time yelling that science isn't trustworthy."

That would be true if it wasn't also a complete strawman as well as another silly exaggeration. Creationists are not yelling that "science isn't trustworthy"! Science has to be testible in order for it to be considered science. What you on the other hand are espousing is a belief system that cleverly packages assumptions together with empirical science and then presents the whole mix as though it all was what everyone should consider to be science.

"As far as the other forum, as I said before I've completely lost interest in these "who said what" exchanges with you, so I'm certainly not going to bring discussions from other forums into here. What I described are my impressions of that place. If you want to declare victory on this, that's fine with me.

But let's keep this in perspective. Both that forum and this one are.....internet forums. In the grand scheme of things, nothing that goes on in either place is of real consequence. You guys can make all the grand declarations about science and evolution you want....meanwhile in the real world where science is actually done, no one hears you at all and things go on as before."

Well that's not good enough. You have repeatedly accused me of being evasive, but when I pressure you to support your claims you simply ignore it. You badger me about answering questions and yet you continually ignore the ones I ask you. I am getting a bit tired of it. I have done my best to address everything you have posted here and all you do is make empty claims about me avoiding them. On this page ALONE I asked you the following questions, NONE of which you have replied to:

* Pay attention to what??? What exactly are you talking about, and where did you specifically say "a group of people"?"

* I asked YOU where I decried atheists?

* Where exactly have I ever been dishonest in my discussions with you?

* Any further comment about that than a sarcastic one-liner?

* What were the days? Were they millions or billions of years?

* How is that "IYO" a reasonable interpretation when we know that there are dependencies between forms of life created on one day with other forms of life created on another day?

* What were the evenings? What what were the mornings?

* Why where they mentioned?
And now, YOU expect me to simply ignore these questions TOO???:

Where was the "were you there" argument being used?

What were the "personal insults" they were using?

SERIOUSLY???? :wacko:

River Jordan · Feb 28, 2014

KingJ,

So Satan is using science to push his agenda.....ok then. Thanks.

Uppsala,

Are you trying to assert that the use of the word "day" in Genesis is referring to the rotation of a planet somewhere in the universe other than the earth?

Not at all. I'm saying that without an earth and/or sun, the words "day", "morning", and "evening" cannot refer to intervals of time or events related to those structures.

I'm curious....what do you think "let the earth bring forth" means?

Don't what? And what have you "explained"?

I don't want you to abandon your interpretation, and I have explained that my overall point here isn't to try and change your beliefs.

Where in the "above" did you present any explanation of how we should interpret evenings and mornings?

As I've stated multiple times now, the days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to me to be literally devices to divide the creative acts, and a means to set the table for the 7 day week.

If I write a letter to you to say that I will be away on the weekend then you hardly have to figure out an "interpretation" for that UNLESS I give some kind of indication that what I was writing was NOT to be taken literally.

Except Genesis isn't a letter.

Who said they were written in a scientific format?

If you don't think they were, that's good. I don't either.

If there are different intepretations then we need to decide which interpretation seems the most reasonable

I agree. That's good.

But I don't believe that Genesis supports evolution

Isn't that trying to put Genesis in a scientific context?

the original greek (as well as most translations) render these verses as saying "no plant of the field" and "no shrub of the field" and all it says is that they had not yet APPEARED, not that they were not CREATED.

It wasn't written in Greek. And again, we see that interpretation is required.

The "original Hebrew" does nothing of the sort. One account is strictly chronological, whereas the other simply expands on the events that occured starting off from the 6th day.

Where exactly in Genesis 2 does it say it's a description of only day 6? In fact, it even begins "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

We don't try to justify our beliefs through science.

Creationist organizations sure do spend a lot of time and money doing just that. ICR doesn't make any bones about what they're about "to discover and transmit the truth about the universe by scientific research and study, and to correlate and apply such scientific data within the supplemental integrating framework of Biblical creationism." (followed by citing the Great Commission and "If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true").

Read together, all that certainly gives the impression that the reason their "research" is strictly an apologetics and evangelical exercise.

Creationists are not yelling that "science isn't trustworthy"!

Look above you at KingJ's post. Not only that, do I need to go into this forum and find all the times I've been chastised for "putting the works of man over the Word of God" and such?

Pay attention to what??? What exactly are you talking about, and where did you specifically say "a group of people"?"

* I asked YOU where I decried atheists?

* Where exactly have I ever been dishonest in my discussions with you?

* Any further comment about that than a sarcastic one-liner?

* What were the days? Were they millions or billions of years?

* How is that "IYO" a reasonable interpretation when we know that there are dependencies between forms of life created on one day with other forms of life created on another day?

* What were the evenings? What what were the mornings?

* Why where they mentioned?
And now, YOU expect me to simply ignore these questions TOO???:

Where was the "were you there" argument being used?

What were the "personal insults" they were using?

1) Sorry, I don't know the context of that question.

2) I retract that claim.

3) I still feel your equivocation over having "looked into both sides of the debate" and "studied" anything as very dishonest.

4) No.

5) The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to me to be literally devices to divide the creative acts, and a means to set the table for the 7 day week.

6) I don't understand what you mean by "dependencies between life forms".

7) The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to me to be literally devices to divide the creative acts, and a means to set the table for the 7 day week.

8) The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to me to be literally devices to divide the creative acts, and a means to set the table for the 7 day week.

9) I retract my claim.

10) I retract my claim.

UppsalaDragby · Mar 1, 2014

River Jordan said:
Not at all. I'm saying that without an earth and/or sun, the words "day", "morning", and "evening" cannot refer to intervals of time or events related to those structures.

And as I said, that is like saying that an inch doesn't exist without a ruler. But even if we ignore that and accept your argument as being a reasonable one. What does that mean?

It means that we have three days where days, evenings and mornings have absolutely no meaning at all. But let's continue and assume that they are periods that are billions of years long. What does that leave us with? It leaves us with vegetation existing for billions of years without any animals. Is that what you believe?

Now let's look at what happened after the third day:

"Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." (Gen 1:14,15)

Suddenly we DO have something that is used to delimit time! That means that after the third day, according to your interpretation, days DO exist! Hmmm...

But something tells me you STILL expect us to consider the days that followed this event to be something other than 24-hour days!
The above verses do not indicate that seasons and days and years did not EXIST before this event, but simply that they did not have "signs to mark" them.

I'm curious....what do you think "let the earth bring forth" means?

While I can understand those who believe it prefer to see this verse as evidence of abiogenesis, the word "let" is used repeatedly throughout the text and so you just cannot pick out one verse and try to make it say what you want it to. Does "let there be light" mean that God just sat back and waited until light evolved? I don't think so.

I think the most reasonable and likely explanation is the one I gave earlier on which is this is just a way of saying that God designated the environments that would support the different kinds of life on the earth.

Now by this I'm not saying that it isn't possible that God assembled living creatures from the elements in the soil, but notice that, however we look at this, what was "brought forth" was not one single creature, but a plurality of creatures.

Except Genesis isn't a letter.

Did I say it was?

Isn't that trying to put Genesis in a scientific context?

No, it is lining up one belief system with another.

And again, we see that interpretation is required.

My point has never been that no interpretation is ever required, and that includes a literal account, but that if something has an alternative meaning than a plain reading of the text then it should be supported somehow.

Where exactly in Genesis 2 does it say it's a description of only day 6? In fact, it even begins "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

Sure, granted, it doesn't say day six, and my intention was not to be adamant that the entire chapter deals exclusively with events that occured on the sixth day. But to me it seems that this chapter is a general recap of what chapter 1 outlined in chronological detail, but focusing more on the circumstances surrounding the creation of man. The first verse actually tells us "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." So this chapter is not a "new" creation story.

In any case, your original objection does not stand. Verse 5 says:

"no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground".

All this verse says is that the plants of the field had not appeared - not because they weren't created, but because there was neither rain, nor a man to work the ground. So obviously, just looking at this verse we can understand that plants existed, but man did not (there was no man to work the ground), which fits in very nicely with the order given in Genesis 1.

Read together, all that certainly gives the impression that the reason their "research" is strictly an apologetics and evangelical exercise.

I think perhaps I missunderstood what you meant by "justifing one's beliefs". I took it you meant to justify one's own beliefs as in "My faith is so weak that I need scientific evidence in order to justify my beliefs". After all, you did make some derogatory comments about how weak our faith was earlier on.

Of course creationists do what they do for apologetical and evangelical reasons. Everyone has a reason for their research, just as no one is free from having an agenda based on their worldview.

Look above you at KingJ's post.

What about it? I think both you and I and KingJ and everyone else following these discussions realize by now that this is not about yelling "science isn't trustworthy" but that what people are CALLING science, in many cases, is not. It is failure to make this distinction that you have been trying to exploit since you came here, which is why we constantly have to put up with silly comments from you along the lines of how we are denying gravity, shouldn't be using computers, shouldn't go to doctors and all the other clever stuff that just muddies everything up.

I agree with KingJ - science is obviously a tool that satan can use to deceive mankind. It would be extremely naive to think he could not. Remember, I was raised by occultists who held seanses in our home. Satan really exists and so do deceiving spirits. That does not mean that I think everything that is taught in science classes is demonic, just that science is flexible enough to allow a certain degree of manipulation.

1) Sorry, I don't know the context of that question.

2) I retract that claim.
3) I still feel your equivocation over having "looked into both sides of the debate" and "studied" anything as very dishonest.

4) No.
5) The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to me to be literally devices to divide the creative acts, and a means to set the table for the 7 day week.
6) I don't understand what you mean by "dependencies between life forms".
7) The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to me to be literally devices to divide the creative acts, and a means to set the table for the 7 day week.
8) The days, mornings, and evenings in Genesis seem to me to be literally devices to divide the creative acts, and a means to set the table for the 7 day week.
9) I retract my claim.
10) I retract my claim.

OK, fair enough, let's move on then without any unnecessary accusations.

Arnie Manitoba · Mar 1, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
Now by this I'm not saying that it isn't possible that God assembled living creatures from the elements in the soil, but notice that, however we look at this, what was "brought forth" was not one single creature, but a plurality of creatures.

I didn't save the link ..... but the other day I was deep into reading evolution theory and DNA and Genetics .... and the atheist evolutionist thinks human life can be traced back possibly to clay soil .... something like that .... I will search again for the link

What occurred to me was the atheist was saying as much as Genesis 2:7 .... Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I find it intriguing that the atheist evolutionist , often without realizing it , comes full circle to similar origins as the Genesis record of creation.

Mr.Bride · Mar 1, 2014

Arnie Manitoba said:
I didn't save the link ..... but the other day I was deep into reading evolution theory and DNA and Genetics .... and the atheist evolutionist thinks human life can be traced back possibly to clay soil .... something like that .... I will search again for the link

What occurred to me was the atheist was saying as much as Genesis 2:7 .... Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I find it intriguing that the atheist evolutionist , often without realizing it , comes full circle to similar origins as the Genesis record of creation.

UppsalaDragby · Mar 2, 2014

Arnie Manitoba said:
I didn't save the link ..... but the other day I was deep into reading evolution theory and DNA and Genetics .... and the atheist evolutionist thinks human life can be traced back possibly to clay soil .... something like that .... I will search again for the link

What occurred to me was the atheist was saying as much as Genesis 2:7 .... Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I find it intriguing that the atheist evolutionist , often without realizing it , comes full circle to similar origins as the Genesis record of creation.

Yeah, I know Arnie, I saw something like that about a month or so ago. Perhaps it was this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/06/new-study-suggests-man-came-from-clay-as-bible-suggests/

Of course, no matter what they find or whatever conclusions they arrive at in regards to this, abiogenesis is assumed.

River Jordan · Mar 3, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
And as I said, that is like saying that an inch doesn't exist without a ruler.

Not even close. An "inch" is not relative to one's perspective; a day OTOH is.

But even if we ignore that and accept your argument as being a reasonable one. What does that mean?

It means that we have three days where days, evenings and mornings have absolutely no meaning at all. But let's continue and assume that they are periods that are billions of years long. What does that leave us with? It leaves us with vegetation existing for billions of years without any animals. Is that what you believe?

IMO, it means exactly what I've been describing. The "days" in Genesis were not intended to convey "this is the amount of time everything took" like it was a newspaper article, but instead as a means to divide creative periods and set the tone for the 7 day week.

Now let's look at what happened after the third day:

"Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." (Gen 1:14,15)

Suddenly we DO have something that is used to delimit time! That means that after the third day, according to your interpretation, days DO exist! Hmmm...

But the text has already insinuated that the "days" it's referring to aren't literal earth days (you can't have those without an earth and sun). And there's nothing in the text that says anything like, "Ok, now that the sun is in place, all mention of "days" in this chapter refer to actual earth days, including retroactively". Instead, the literary pattern continues as before.

While I can understand those who believe it prefer to see this verse as evidence of abiogenesis, the word "let" is used repeatedly throughout the text and so you just cannot pick out one verse and try to make it say what you want it to. Does "let there be light" mean that God just sat back and waited until light evolved? I don't think so.

It's not a matter of what I want it to say, it's what it actually says.

I think the most reasonable and likely explanation is the one I gave earlier on which is this is just a way of saying that God designated the environments that would support the different kinds of life on the earth.

And I disagree. Obviously you and I read the exact same text very differently. This is also reflected across Christianity, Judaism, and across time. Funny how for something that's supposed to have a "plain reading" there has been so much disagreement over, for so long.

Now by this I'm not saying that it isn't possible that God assembled living creatures from the elements in the soil, but notice that, however we look at this, what was "brought forth" was not one single creature, but a plurality of creatures.

But it doesn't say He assembled anything. It just says He let the earth bring forth. To me, that's a very clear statement that God let things happen on their own.

No, it is lining up one belief system with another.

That's effectively the same thing. What I get the sense is, you're taking Genesis and the way you read it, holding it up next to scientific work, and using it as your determinant for whether or not you accept that scientific work.

Sure, granted, it doesn't say day six, and my intention was not to be adamant that the entire chapter deals exclusively with events that occured on the sixth day. But to me it seems that this chapter is a general recap of what chapter 1 outlined in chronological detail, but focusing more on the circumstances surrounding the creation of man. The first verse actually tells us "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." So this chapter is not a "new" creation story.

So much for a "plain reading". Not that there's anything wrong with what you're doing, but what you're describing involves a lot of interpretive work. And that's been my point this entire time. You can't expect everyone to interpret these things exactly the same, and chastise and question the faith of everyone who interprets them differently than you.

In any case, your original objection does not stand. Verse 5 says:

"no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground".

All this verse says is that the plants of the field had not appeared - not because they weren't created, but because there was neither rain, nor a man to work the ground. So obviously, just looking at this verse we can understand that plants existed, but man did not (there was no man to work the ground), which fits in very nicely with the order given in Genesis 1.

That's one interpretation among many. Others disagree with what you posted above.

Of course creationists do what they do for apologetical and evangelical reasons. Everyone has a reason for their research, just as no one is free from having an agenda based on their worldview.

Nope, sorry. No one in the sciences I've ever encountered does their work for any sort of philosophical or apologetic agenda. Creationist organizations are unique in that regard.

What about it? I think both you and I and KingJ and everyone else following these discussions realize by now that this is not about yelling "science isn't trustworthy" but that what people are CALLING science, in many cases, is not.

That's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

"I love science......(and by science I mean that which agrees with my religious beliefs, all science that disagrees with it is not science).

It is failure to make this distinction that you have been trying to exploit since you came here, which is why we constantly have to put up with silly comments from you along the lines of how we are denying gravity, shouldn't be using computers, shouldn't go to doctors and all the other clever stuff that just muddies everything up.

The only distinction is what I parodied above. And no, I'm not buying into such intellectual laziness at all.

I agree with KingJ - science is obviously a tool that satan can use to deceive mankind. It would be extremely naive to think he could not. Remember, I was raised by occultists who held seanses in our home. Satan really exists and so do deceiving spirits. That does not mean that I think everything that is taught in science classes is demonic, just that science is flexible enough to allow a certain degree of manipulation.

So by that same token, do you agree that Satan could be using young-earth creationism to deceive mankind?

UppsalaDragby said:
Of course, no matter what they find or whatever conclusions they arrive at in regards to this, abiogenesis is assumed.

Yeah....this is what I'm talking about. The tone of your posts about scientists and their work leaves little doubt about your attitude towards them.

Arnie Manitoba · Mar 3, 2014

We must keep something in mind while we are reading about DAY in the early part of genesis ...

Remember , God is creating time itself (in the early part of Genesis)

Previous to that , time did not exist

So for all we know , God's first construct of time could be what Genesis refers to as DAY

Today , we still use DAY as the foundational reference of everything mankind does when it comes to measuring "time"

So we should not have a problem understanding that God first created DAY .... then sometime afterwards set the planets in motion to follow this period of time he called DAY

It as much as says so in Genesis 1: 14 .... Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years

UppsalaDragby · Mar 4, 2014

River Jordan said:
Not even close. An "inch" is not relative to one's perspective; a day OTOH is.

That argument actually works against you. Genesis 1 was not written before the creation of the sun and stars but afterwards, so the "perspective" of what a day means would obviously have been according to the understanding of the people living at that time and onwards.

IMO, it means exactly what I've been describing. The "days" in Genesis were not intended to convey "this is the amount of time everything took" like it was a newspaper article, but instead as a means to divide creative periods and set the tone for the 7 day week.

Well, as I said:

"My point has never been that no interpretation is ever required, and that includes a literal account, but that if something has an alternative meaning than a plain reading of the text then it should be supported somehow."

What you are doing is trying to support your interpretation with your own opinion, and simply implying that rather than believing what scripture explicitly says, suggesting it is merely setting some kind of "tone". Scripture has been given to us by God so that we can use is for correction, among other things. By distorting what it says and without any support claiming that it is only conveying a tone, you are attempting to nullify scripture.

But the text has already insinuated that the "days" it's referring to aren't literal earth days (you can't have those without an earth and sun).

No, you are the one making the insinuation, not the text. There is only one consistent interpretation of day that makes sense. I showed you how an alternative interpretation breaks apart which forces you to resort to a wishy-washy interpretation that involves "tones" and renders the word "day" as lacking any clear definition. What the text teaches us is that the heavenly bodies were put in place in order to mark out how the word day should be defined. Despite that you insist on claiming that it doesn't refer to the scriptural definition given in Genesis 1.

And there's nothing in the text that says anything like, "Ok, now that the sun is in place, all mention of "days" in this chapter refer to actual earth days, including retroactively". Instead, the literary pattern continues as before.

That is the kind of remark that shows exactly what kind of game you are playing. Rather than trying to build up a strong case to defend your stance you simply fall back on arguments like "the bible doesn't explicitly say this, so therefore bla bla bla". Sure, you can scurry off and hide behind something like that, but whatever happened to presenting the most reasonable explanation? You have nothing better to come up with so you clutch at whatever you can.

And I disagree. Obviously you and I read the exact same text very differently. This is also reflected across Christianity, Judaism, and across time. Funny how for something that's supposed to have a "plain reading" there has been so much disagreement over, for so long.

Another appeal to disagreement? You should be giving support for why you disagree rather than wasting time pointing out that there is disagreement.

But it doesn't say He assembled anything. It just says He let the earth bring forth. To me, that's a very clear statement that God let things happen on their own.

It says he said "let there be", not that he just let things happen. We can see from studying scripture that what God says happens exactly as he says.

That's effectively the same thing. What I get the sense is, you're taking Genesis and the way you read it, holding it up next to scientific work, and using it as your determinant for whether or not you accept that scientific work.

No it isn't the same thing. Science deals with what is observable, repeatable and testable, a faith system relates to one's worldview.

So much for a "plain reading". Not that there's anything wrong with what you're doing, but what you're describing involves a lot of interpretive work. And that's been my point this entire time. You can't expect everyone to interpret these things exactly the same, and chastise and question the faith of everyone who interprets them differently than you.

I see that you are trying to confuse the issue by contrasting a "plain reading" with interpretation. When I speak about a "plain reading" what I mean is that the verses themselves, and the language they use, do not need to diverge from what we normally mean unless we have a good reason to do so. Over and above that, we obviouly need to evaluate these verses in the context within which they have been written. Such evaluation requires interpretation and opens the door for disagreement, which is why these matters are being discussed.

However, rather than discussing how your interpretation should be considered to be the correct one, all you seem to be doing is appealing to opinion, to the fact that there is disagreement, and pointing out that interpretation is necessary.

That's one interpretation among many. Others disagree with what you posted above.

I rest my case...

That's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

"I love science......(and by science I mean that which agrees with my religious beliefs, all science that disagrees with it is not science).

It is not a No True Scotsman fallacy - not as long as the definition of science involves what is observable, repeatable and testable.

So by that same token, do you agree that Satan could be using young-earth creationism to deceive mankind?

Sure, satan could be using kitchen sinks to decieve mankind, but that is why we have been given scripture - to indicate what warning signs to look out for. Scripture predicted, quite accurately, that in then end times people would deny what was written in the book of Genesis:

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:3-7)

It says that the wrath of God is coming because of men worship creation, rather than the creator:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen" (Romans 1:18-25)

Yeah....this is what I'm talking about. The tone of your posts about scientists and their work leaves little doubt about your attitude towards them.

You are completely wrong. I don't have anything against scientists, I just believe what scripture says - that ALL mankind is evil, both scientist and non-scientists, and that there are things we definitely need to be wary of.

River Jordan · Mar 4, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
That argument actually works against you. Genesis 1 was not written before the creation of the sun and stars but afterwards, so the "perspective" of what a day means would obviously have been according to the understanding of the people living at that time and onwards.

If you want to appeal to "the understanding of the people of the time", then believe me, I'm willing to go there. That's a very common argument against a fundamentalist reading of Genesis.

What you are doing is trying to support your interpretation with your own opinion, and simply implying that rather than believing what scripture explicitly says, suggesting it is merely setting some kind of "tone".

Except scripture does later cite the Genesis week as a model for the 7 day week. To me, that's a good indication of what the point of the 7 day period in Genesis is.

Scripture has been given to us by God so that we can use is for correction, among other things. By distorting what it says and without any support claiming that it is only conveying a tone, you are attempting to nullify scripture.

See, this is the difference between us. I understand that interpretation of scripture is oftentimes a subjective exercise. Across the history of Christianity and Judaism there have been all sorts of disagreements about how to read various scriptures, the Genesis creation account included. Long before scientists proposed "billions of years", theologians were arguing about how Genesis should be read. So the fact that my reading of Genesis differs from someone else's doesn't surprise me or bother me at all.

You and the other fundamentalists OTOH seem to be really upset that anyone would dare to read Genesis differently. You accuse people like of "rejecting scripture", "attempting to nullify scripture", and question our faith. Should I go back and pull out all the nasty comments fundamentalists have made to me here simply because I don't read Genesis the same way they do?

See the difference? Do you understand how you guys' reactions to someone like me is indicative of deeper issues?

No, you are the one making the insinuation, not the text. There is only one consistent interpretation of day that makes sense.

There it is again.....there is only one way to interpret Genesis....your way.

All this makes me wonder what you're afraid of...what you think might happen if this strict authoritarian approach to scripture started to slip away. What would you lose?

That is the kind of remark that shows exactly what kind of game you are playing. Rather than trying to build up a strong case to defend your stance you simply fall back on arguments like "the bible doesn't explicitly say this, so therefore bla bla bla". Sure, you can scurry off and hide behind something like that, but whatever happened to presenting the most reasonable explanation? You have nothing better to come up with so you clutch at whatever you can.

More nasty comments and accusations of playing games. You wouldn't do that if you didn't feel threatened somehow.

Another appeal to disagreement? You should be giving support for why you disagree rather than wasting time pointing out that there is disagreement.

I'm not appealing to anything, just citing the fact that across the history of Christianity and Judaism there have been disagreements on how to read Genesis 1&2. Obviously if things were as cut and dry as you keep trying to make them, this wouldn't be the case.

It says he said "let there be", not that he just let things happen. We can see from studying scripture that what God says happens exactly as he says.

Of course. God says "let the earth bring forth" and the earth does exactly that.

No it isn't the same thing. Science deals with what is observable, repeatable and testable, a faith system relates to one's worldview.

You can say that all you want, but it's very apparent to me that the filter through which you evaluate science is not the validity of that science, but how you read scripture. Why else would you be so comfortable waving away so much established science even though you know very little about it?

I see that you are trying to confuse the issue by contrasting a "plain reading" with interpretation. When I speak about a "plain reading" what I mean is that the verses themselves, and the language they use, do not need to diverge from what we normally mean unless we have a good reason to do so. Over and above that, we obviouly need to evaluate these verses in the context within which they have been written. Such evaluation requires interpretation and opens the door for disagreement, which is why these matters are being discussed.

The fact that "these matters" have been discussed for millennia is a good indication that things aren't as clear cut as you're trying to make it seem.

However, rather than discussing how your interpretation should be considered to be the correct one, all you seem to be doing is appealing to opinion, to the fact that there is disagreement, and pointing out that interpretation is necessary.

Because it's true and because I'm not trying to sway you to my POV, nor am I trying to justify my reading to you. I fully understand that you don't accept it, and I'm completely fine with that. I guess the question is, are you ok?

Sure, satan could be using kitchen sinks to decieve mankind, but that is why we have been given scripture - to indicate what warning signs to look out for. Scripture predicted, quite accurately, that in then end times people would deny what was written in the book of Genesis:

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:3-7)

????? That's not talking about how people read Genesis at all. It's talking about "scoffers" wondering where Jesus is and why He hasn't returned. The mention of Genesis is simply to remind us to trust in God.

It says that the wrath of God is coming because of men worship creation, rather than the creator:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen" (Romans 1:18-25)

Um.....yeah. Since no one here is worshiping or serving created things instead of God, I'm not sure what your point is.

You are completely wrong. I don't have anything against scientists, I just believe what scripture says - that ALL mankind is evil, both scientist and non-scientists, and that there are things we definitely need to be wary of.

Should I go back through and pull up some quotes from you about scientists and/or their work?

UppsalaDragby · Mar 5, 2014

River Jordan said:
If you want to appeal to "the understanding of the people of the time", then believe me, I'm willing to go there. That's a very common argument against a fundamentalist reading of Genesis.

Go there as much as you want, I don't mind. I have already pointed out the fact that the Bible must have been written not only for that generation but for all generations.

Except scripture does later cite the Genesis week as a model for the 7 day week. To me, that's a good indication of what the point of the 7 day period in Genesis is.

I'm not sure how you think that supports your point. What scripture basically tells us is that because God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh you should also work six days and rest on the seventh:

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

So how on earth does that suddenly make the creation week a "tone"?

See, this is the difference between us. I understand that interpretation of scripture is oftentimes a subjective exercise.

Based on?

Across the history of Christianity and Judaism there have been all sorts of disagreements about how to read various scriptures, the Genesis creation account included. Long before scientists proposed "billions of years", theologians were arguing about how Genesis should be read. So the fact that my reading of Genesis differs from someone else's doesn't surprise me or bother me at all.

Sure, but not only are there disagreements about just about everything you can mention, including evolution, there is absolutely nothing in scripture, that indicates that popularity among Christians (or Jews) should be considered to be a guideline for what we believe. On the contrary, throughout the entire biblical account it has been the opposite. Among the Jews, who were given to us as a warning not to follow their examples, where was only a "remnant" that remained faithful to his Word. Similarly, many of Jesus followers abandoned him when what he said did not mesh with what they wanted to hear. He also pointed out how difficult it would be for anyone to actually follow him:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

So if you want to make arguments from Buddhism then quote Buddha. If you are advocating a vague,
New Agey kind of religion then make arguments from what they say. But if you want to make claims about what Christians should base their faith on then you had better use the Bible to "correct" those you think are wrong.

Also, "across the history of Christianity and Judaism" you will find totally atrocious behaviours and deceptive doctrines. The "Jews" crucified Christ and the "Christians" have been guilty of all kinds of ungodly acts. Our duty is to follow Christ, not Jews and Christians. Jesus quoted Moses and the prophets as being authoritative. Nowhere does he suggest that we should base our doctrine on whether or not people disagree on what Moses and the prophets wrote.

You and the other fundamentalists OTOH seem to be really upset that anyone would dare to read Genesis differently. You accuse people like of "rejecting scripture", "attempting to nullify scripture", and question our faith. Should I go back and pull out all the nasty comments fundamentalists have made to me here simply because I don't read Genesis the same way they do?

See the difference? Do you understand how you guys' reactions to someone like me is indicative of deeper issues?

Well the problem isn't so much that you are "reading scripture differently". What you are doing isn't providing any alternative interpretation but rather sweeping it all aside simply by labelling anyone who actually believes in what it says as a "fundamentalist" or a "hyper-literalist" as though that was something demonstrably wrong. If it IS wrong then provide scriptural support for that fact instead of just insinuating that it is some kind of sickness. ALL the NT writers, including Jesus, quote the Book of Genesis as though it described a series of concrete events and use it as a basis for doctrine.

There it is again.....there is only one way to interpret Genesis....your way.

No it is not, but as I have told you repeatedly, you are not presenting an alternative interpretation, just attacking a literal one. I can accept another interpretation if there WAS one to accept, but so far all I have EVER seen from theistic evolutionists is excuses for why we shouldn't believe in what the text says.

All this makes me wonder what you're afraid of...what you think might happen if this strict authoritarian approach to scripture started to slip away. What would you lose?

I am not afraid - I am concerned. It is not ME that loses anything, but I think that many other people do since they are falsely convinced that whatever they are taught in science classes is uncontestable and that Genesis is a myth. I live in one of the countries where evolution has strongest support, and "coincidentally" 80% of the population are atheists. We, as Christians, have the duty of contending for the Gospel, not for human doctrines that undermine the basic foundational truths of the gospel. If death did not enter the world through one man, then neither do we need a saviour who gave his life for us.

More nasty comments and accusations of playing games. You wouldn't do that if you didn't feel threatened somehow.

I'm simply trying to get you to respond adequately to the problems involved in denying what scripture teaches us. You aren't giving us any concrete reasons why a literal interpretation of Genesis should be abandoned, or why you think things are are not "explicitly" in the text can somehow be squeezed in there, even though they contradict what it says. I am trying to conduct a discussion here between two people who disagree, does that mean that I feel "threatened"? I don't feel threatened, I feel frustrated by the fact that you keep on trying to wiggle around things all the time. Please, is it too much to ask for a consistent interpretation of Genesis that does not cause any conflicts with the rest of scripture, or is all you can tell me and all the readers here that you simply "disagree", that there are "other interprations", and so on?

Of course. God says "let the earth bring forth" and the earth does exactly that.

And? How does the earth do that? I'm not really sure what your point is any more.

You can say that all you want, but it's very apparent to me that the filter through which you evaluate science is not the validity of that science, but how you read scripture. Why else would you be so comfortable waving away so much established science even though you know very little about it?

I know enough about it to know that no one has ever produced anything observable, repeatable or testable that contradicts the Genesis account. What more do I need to know in the context of this discussion?

The fact that "these matters" have been discussed for millennia is a good indication that things aren't as clear cut as you're trying to make it seem.

I am not trying to say that they are "clear cut", but show me ONE interpretation of Genesis other than a literal one that makes sense? You are not doing that, and neither has anyone done so during the past millennia as far as I know. If you think there is one then point it out to me and we can discuss it.

Because it's true and because I'm not trying to sway you to my POV, nor am I trying to justify my reading to you. I fully understand that you don't accept it, I'm completely fine with that. I guess the question is, are you ok?

Yes, it's true that interpretion is necessary, but that in itself is not an argument against a literal interpretation, which is my point. The problem is that you aren't contributing anything constructive to support YOUR interpretation (if indeed you have one). That we disagree is totally OK with me, but it doesn't seem to me that you are doing much in the way of explaining WHY you disagree (other than the fact that you don't seem to think that impossible for someone to refer to a measurement of time pointing back to a time that existed before the means of measuring that time existed, which is someting you cannot defend).

Should I go back through and pull up some quotes from you about scientists and/or their work?

Sure, I don't mind at all. But remember while doing so that my point is not that scientists are more evil than anyone else. It is simply a fact that we are all susceptible to deception. The biblical cure for that is to remember the warnings that we have been given, no matter what academic degree or level of intelligence we have.

River Jordan · Mar 5, 2014

UppsalaDragby said:
Go there as much as you want, I don't mind. I have already pointed out the fact that the Bible must have been written not only for that generation but for all generations.

Then please be consistent on that point.

I'm not sure how you think that supports your point. What scripture basically tells us is that because God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh you should also work six days and rest on the seventh:

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day."

So how on earth does that suddenly make the creation week a "tone"?

If my reading of Genesis 1 is that the use of a 7 day period is not about how long the creation of everything in the universe took but is instead a model for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath, then scripture later citing Genesis 1 as the example to follow for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath fits that very nicely.

Based on?

Whatever each person brings to the table....their background, their psychology, their knowledge level in different areas....everything that makes a subjective experience subjective.

Sure, but not only are there disagreements about just about everything you can mention, including evolution, there is absolutely nothing in scripture, that indicates that popularity among Christians (or Jews) should be considered to be a guideline for what we believe.

I've never argued that popularity should be the guideline. I'm simply noting that there is a very long history of disagreement over how to read Genesis that pre-dates evolution and "millions of years". That's good evidence that the fundamentalist approach of "our way or nothing else" isn't realistic.

So if you want to make arguments from Buddhism then quote Buddha. If you are advocating a vague,
New Agey kind of religion then make arguments from what they say. But if you want to make claims about what Christians should base their faith on then you had better use the Bible to "correct" those you think are wrong.

????? No one here has made arguments from Buddhism.

Also, "across the history of Christianity and Judaism" you will find totally atrocious behaviours and deceptive doctrines. The "Jews" crucified Christ and the "Christians" have been guilty of all kinds of ungodly acts. Our duty is to follow Christ, not Jews and Christians. Jesus quoted Moses and the prophets as being authoritative. Nowhere does he suggest that we should base our doctrine on whether or not people disagree on what Moses and the prophets wrote.

I'm not saying we should. I'm simply noting that there is a very long history of disagreement over how to read Genesis that pre-dates evolution and "millions of years". That's good evidence that the fundamentalist approach of "our way or nothing else" isn't realistic.

Well the problem isn't so much that you are "reading scripture differently". What you are doing isn't providing any alternative interpretation but rather sweeping it all aside simply by labelling anyone who actually believes in what it says as a "fundamentalist" or a "hyper-literalist" as though that was something demonstrably wrong. If it IS wrong then provide scriptural support for that fact instead of just insinuating that it is some kind of sickness. ALL the NT writers, including Jesus, quote the Book of Genesis as though it described a series of concrete events and use it as a basis for doctrine.

I have explained how I read Genesis several times. I have a hard time believing you missed that.

And a literal interpretation of Genesis of the sort you and others here are advocating (young-earth creationism) is a largely fundamentalist phenomenon. Young-earth creationism itself is primarily a US Protestant movement. Those are just the facts. Why would you see that as derogatory?

No it is not, but as I have told you repeatedly, you are not presenting an alternative interpretation, just attacking a literal one. I can accept another interpretation if there WAS one to accept, but so far all I have EVER seen from theistic evolutionists is excuses for why we shouldn't believe in what the text says.

Again, I have explained how I read Genesis several times. I have a hard time believing you missed that.

I am not afraid - I am concerned. It is not ME that loses anything, but I think that many other people do since they are falsely convinced that whatever they are taught in science classes is uncontestable and that Genesis is a myth.

What do you think people like me will lose?

I live in one of the countries where evolution has strongest support, and "coincidentally" 80% of the population are atheists. We, as Christians, have the duty of contending for the Gospel, not for human doctrines that undermine the basic foundational truths of the gospel. If death did not enter the world through one man, then neither do we need a saviour who gave his life for us.

What country is that, if you don't mind me asking?

I'm simply trying to get you to respond adequately to the problems involved in denying what scripture teaches us. You aren't giving us any concrete reasons why a literal interpretation of Genesis should be abandoned, or why you think things are are not "explicitly" in the text can somehow be squeezed in there, even though they contradict what it says. I am trying to conduct a discussion here between two people who disagree, does that mean that I feel "threatened"? I don't feel threatened, I feel frustrated by the fact that you keep on trying to wiggle around things all the time. Please, is it too much to ask for a consistent interpretation of Genesis that does not cause any conflicts with the rest of scripture, or is all you can tell me and all the readers here that you simply "disagree", that there are "other interprations", and so on?

I get the sense that you and others here feel threatened from the aggressive, attacking tone of many of your posts and by how often my faith is questioned. People generally only do that to those who pose a threat.

And? How does the earth do that? I'm not really sure what your point is any more.

Scripture doesn't say how the earth brought forth, just as scripture doesn't say how God creates mountains or wind. That's where science comes in.

I

know enough about it to know that no one has ever produced anything observable, repeatable or testable that contradicts the Genesis account. What more do I need to know in the context of this discussion?

Where exactly have you looked?

I am not trying to say that they are "clear cut", but show me ONE interpretation of Genesis other than a literal one that makes sense? You are not doing that, and neither has anyone done so during the past millennia as far as I know. If you think there is one then point it out to me and we can discuss it.

I have explained how I read Genesis several times. I have a hard time believing you missed that.

Sure, I don't mind at all. But remember while doing so that my point is not that scientists are more evil than anyone else. It is simply a fact that we are all susceptible to deception. The biblical cure for that is to remember the warnings that we have been given, no matter what academic degree or level of intelligence we have.

Ok, I'll do that later today.

So I went back through several threads just here in the General Forum, and I found a lot of the same sentiments repeated by young-earth creationists. In general, they are...

1) Evolution is a religion/belief system

2) People like me who are both Christians and "evolutionists" (and this is a long list)...value the world's wisdom over God, are atheists posing as Christians, brain dead, no different than ungodly atheists, dishonest Christians, a joke, should be made to shut up, have no respect for scripture, are trying to convince people that God isn't real, are slaves to humanism, and are trying to stumble fellow Christians.

3) Human reason is not to be trusted

4) Evolution is absolutely incompatible with Genesis, Christianity, and even God

5) Evolutionists are atheists

6) Man-made science is not reliable, is a product of heathens, is demonic, is a conspiracy to discredit the Bible, is ungodly, and is biased.

These things kept coming up over and over as I read through the threads (I have the quotes if anyone is interested). But taken as a whole, does anyone here really dispute that conservative/fundamentalist Christianity is extremely anti-science?

UppsalaDragby · Mar 6, 2014

River Jordan said:
Then please be consistent on that point.

Would it be too much trouble for you to explain to me what you mean by that?

If my reading of Genesis 1 is that the use of a 7 day period is not about how long the creation of everything in the universe took but is instead a model for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath, then scripture later citing Genesis 1 as the example to follow for the 7 day week with one day of rest on the Sabbath fits that very nicely.

Firstly, you ignore the fact that God commanded the people to observe a six day working week based on the fact that he created the universe in six days, which is something he asserts in the verse I gave you.

Secondly, you give absolutely no scriptural evidence whatsoever that God did not create the universe in six literal days. You are simply using your fantasy, rather than making a serious attempt to interpret the text in a way that can be defended. For example, where does scripture ever use patterns or models that have undefined measurements? The opposite is easy to demonstrate:

"They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." (Hebrews 8:5)

"Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you." (Ex 25:9)

If you read Exodus 26 you will see that God gives exact measurements for the tabernacle. Not only that, he always seems to use literal, concrete objects to symbolize spiritual realities. So if you are going to suggest he is using fuzzy, fluffy measurements then I think you need to make an effort to support this "interpretation" through the use of scripure, not your imagination.

Whatever each person brings to the table....their background, their psychology, their knowledge level in different areas....everything that makes a subjective experience subjective.

So everyone is free to interpret scripture any old way they please? If that is the case then how can scripture be used to correct anyone? All anyone needs to do in order to avoid scriptures they don't want to acknowledge is to say: "I don't interpret it that way", totally nullifying 2 Timothy 3:16.

I've never argued that popularity should be the guideline. I'm simply noting that there is a very long history of disagreement over how to read Genesis that pre-dates evolution and "millions of years". That's good evidence that the fundamentalist approach of "our way or nothing else" isn't realistic.

I have never said anything remotely like "our way or nothing else". What I have pointed out several times in this discussion is that I am doing exactly what I am supposed to do when there are such disagreements. I examine the arguments being used by both parties and select the one that seems to have the best explanation for what the text says. I told you some time back that I was perfectly willing to accept the possibility that the theory of evolution and the Genesis account were compatible IF someone could give a reasonable interpretation that made sense and was consistent with the rest of the biblical account.

Someone simply pointing out that there are differences and disagreements and giving vague and poorly supported arguments for what they are trying to insist, has all the makings of someone trying to read what they want INTO the text, rather than giving an interpretation that deserves serious consideration.

????? No one here has made arguments from Buddhism.

????? I never said they did. Does the little word "if" mean anything to you?

Please read the entire comment in context!

I'm simply noting that there is a very long history of disagreement over how to read Genesis that pre-dates evolution and "millions of years".

I've heard that kind of argument used many times before, but when I took the time to look at the quotes that theistic evolutionists and old-earthers use to support the idea that the idea of an old earth was not a recent one, all I could see were comments made by early Christians who were doing exactly what many do today - speculating on whether the days in Genesis could have been thousand year periods based on verses like 2 Peter 3:8. Take note however that what they were doing was at least based on scripture - not an attempt to squeeze millions of years into Genesis.

I have explained how I read Genesis several times. I have a hard time believing you missed that.

I haven't missed anything. You might have explained how you read it, but what you haven't done is explain in any particular detail why you read it the way you do. Where does scripture indicate that the days in Genesis were not 24-hour days? All you have done is raise an objection, which not was weakly argued, it didn't give any positive support for your so-called interpretation. Why, if you think your objection really show that the days were 24-hours, do you simply ASSUME long periods of time? Why not microseconds? You see what I mean? You aren't interpreting scripture, because the ONLY support scripture gives as far as time is concerned, is that the length of the days were MARKED by the heavenly bodies. In other words, you have absolutely nothing to stand on.

And a literal interpretation of Genesis of the sort you and others here are advocating (young-earth creationism) is a largely fundamentalist phenomenon.

And? All that really means is that people who believe that what the Bible says is true, believe that what the Bible says is true... so.. what's your point?

Young-earth creationism itself is primarily a US Protestant movement. Those are just the facts. Why would you see that as derogatory?

I don't see it as derogatory, but what I DO see is people using these words as though they were arguments in themselves - negative arguments. What you are failing to do is explain WHY you think it is wrong to be a "fundie" and why a literal (I don't know why you throw "hyper" in front of the word) interpretation is wrong.

What do you think people like me will lose?

My concern is not simply for "people like you", even though I am truly deeply concerned for you too. I think the huge success that evolutionists have had in promoting evolution as a proven fact is giving people the wrong impression that the Bible has been disproven, is a myth, and so on. If they are led to believe things like that then it will definitely be a hinderance to their coming to faith.

As far as people like you are concerned, I don't have the ability to determine whether or not you are truly saved. I expect you are, because that is what you say. But in any case I consider belief in evolution to be a slippery slope. It might not directly effect your salvation, but there is no way to measure the side effects it has on you, or the people around you.

Telling the truth might cause people to cringe, but in the long run we don't know what effect it ultimately achieves. I cannot adhere to a lie, just because it is widely accepted. If people want to mock creationists then let them do so. I am confident that contending for the truth will prevail even if it arouses distaste. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household.

What country is that, if you don't mind me asking?

I live in Sweden, although I was born in England and grew up in Australia.

I get the sense that you and others here feel threatened from the aggressive, attacking tone of many of your posts and by how often my faith is questioned. People generally only do that to those who pose a threat.

Oh, come on... considering the fact that we have been having this discussion for weeks now I don't think I have been particularly aggressive, especially considering the fact that your tone has often been condescending and provocative.

I have tried many different approaches over the years in an effort to find a good way to hold discussions with people who I am in disagreement with. I tried many, many times to be the perfect Christian, not insulting, trying hard to avoid inflamatory remarks, trying to show respect, trying to pick my words carefully so that they wouldn't offend, and so on. But it just got wearysome, and most of the time it just didn't work because I never got the same level of respect back. Today I just write. That's all. If people don't like what I have to say then that's just too bad.

Scripture doesn't say how the earth brought forth, just as scripture doesn't say how God creates mountains or wind. That's where science comes in.

Sure, no problem with that, but science can only "come in" when applied to things that are observable, repeatable and testable. If we go beyond that then what we are talking about is no longer science, but speculation.

Where exactly have you looked?

Looked for what?

In the context of this discussion I don't have to read every single scientific paper ever published in order to understand that there are certain undeniable truths that just cannot be ignored.

Firstly, science has limitations.

Secondly, no one knows how much information that is relevant to this issue that is missing. We only know what we know.

Thirdly, science is not infallible.

Forthly, there are things that scientists discover that defy reason, so even arguments that seem to be scientific and reasonable can be wrong.

Fifthly, contrary to common belief, we actually don't have any guarantee that everything within the realm of science advances.

That last point is interesting because it can be very deceptive depending on the circumstances. We assume that scince science is "self-correcting" that it almost automatically progresses towards the truth. But can we be sure of that? In order for that to be true then the "correction" must be correct.

In most cases it probably will be. But much of it depends on how much we know, contra how much we don't know.

In this discussion we have that problem. We can make assumptions about the past based on what we know, but we cannot make assumptions based on what we don't know.

These things kept coming up over and over as I read through the threads (I have the quotes if anyone is interested). But taken as a whole, does anyone here really dispute that conservative/fundamentalist Christianity is extremely anti-science?

I expected you to do what you said you would do and "go back through and pull up some quotes from you about scientists and/or their work?"

All you have here done is make a list of generalizations, and then make one yourself!!!

I wish evolution was true ... because I would have Wings

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Similar threads